I only looked at test, looks good to me.
I'd rarely ask to remove extra prints in tests. It adds initial
debugging data points in case something breaks down the road.
Brad
On 1/4/2015 8:25 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Brad,
So I created another webrev (just removed the unneeded import and
l
Sorry for the delay.
TestKGParity.java
-
Can you provide more comment on what kind of algorithms are you want to
cover in this testing?
Suggested to use the bug synopsis as the summary filed.
You are the author of this test. You may want to remove the author line
in the class co
Hi Xuelei,
Thanks for review, please check the update:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zailiu/8044193/webrev.03/
Please help to push it if OK.
Full comments:
8048607: Implement key generation tests
Reviewed-by: xuelei
Contributed-by: Zaiyao Liu
Thanks and Regards.
Kevin
在 2015/1/7 8:38, Xuelei
Hello all,
This is a quick fix to deal with a broken link for the RC5ParameterSpec
javadoc.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8058912
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8058912/webrev.01/
Thanks!
--Jamil
Looks fine to me.
Just curious, why update the link of
"http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2040.txt";? The link works.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 1/7/2015 10:59 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is a quick fix to deal with a broken link for the RC5ParameterSpec
> javadoc.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.open
I did a similar doc bug fix in the past and one of the comments suggested using
the tools variant of the RFC page. The table of contents links and links to
errata and so forth are nice. So I figured I'd do the same thing here as last
time. If it's a problem I can switch back to the ASCII vers
Actually, www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc.txt is probably a better long term
normative reference for documents in the RFC series.
Mike
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 7, 2015, at 00:06, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>
> I did a similar doc bug fix in the past and one of the comments suggested
> using the tool
On 1/7/2015 1:06 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
> I did a similar doc bug fix in the past and one of the comments
> suggested using the tools variant of the RFC page. The table of
> contents links and links to errata and so forth are nice. So I figured
> I'd do the same thing here as last time. If it's
On 1/7/2015 14:26, Michael StJohns wrote:
Actually,www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc.txt is probably a better long term
normative reference for documents in the RFC series.
Why?
I think Jamil's tools.ietf.org/html/rfc is better. The xml2rfc tool
generates this style.
--Max
Mike
